British MPs reject military intervention in Syria

Members of Parliament are seen attending a session of Parliament in the House of Commons, called to discuss the Syria crisis, in this still image taken from video, in London August 29, 2013. (Reuters) / Reuters

Any possibility of British involvement in a military campaign in Syria has been effectively ruled out after British lawmakers voted down the prospect in parliament, costing the US the nation’s closest ally in a potential strike.

By a 285 to 272 margin British MPs rejected the government’s
motion to support in principle military action against Syria. A
second vote was due to be held on committing to action following
the report by United Nations weapons inspectors, who are
currently investigating claims that President Bashar Assad used
chemical weapons on civilians.

British MPs also voted down an
opposition Labour amendment calling for more information about
the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria.

The Labour amendment was
defeated Thursday by 332 votes to 220. “A number of Tories in
the no lobby with Labour,” wrote Labour MP Jon Trickett.

MPs on both sides of the aisle
expressed doubt over British involvement in Syria during a six
hour debate in the House of Commons. Cameron called back
lawmakers from their summer vacation to determine whether Britain
would join US-led military action in Syria, if the US decides to
do so in the coming days.

The vote could be a blow to
Cameron’s authority after he has advocated UK military action in
the event US forces deploy missiles in the Middle East.

British Prime Minister David
Cameron asserted that such action would put a halt to human
rights atrocities in Syria, while Labour party MPs said they
required more evidence of Assad’s guilt to intervene in the
Middle Eastern nation’s two-year civil war.

Cameron, while advocating
limited attacks against the Assad government, admitted he was not
"100 percent certain” that Assad was behind a recent
chemical attack, but that it was “highly likely”.

After the defeat in the
parliament, Cameron admitted it was clear that Britons did not
want action and said he “will act accordingly.” One MP
shouted “resign” as Cameron pledged he would not order an
attack.

Phillip Hammond, the UK
Defense Secretary, said the US “will be disappointed that
Britain will not be involved”, however he did not think it
would halt the process, “I don’t expect that the lack of
British participation will stop any action,” he told the
BBC.

US Secretary of Defense Chuck
Hagel commented on the UK's decision, explaining that a concerted
international effort is the way forward in this matter.

"It is the goal of President (Barack) Obama and our government
... whatever decision is taken, that it be an international
collaboration and effort," he said on a trip to the
Philippines.

Hagel added that the American approach will be "to continue to
find an international coalition that will act together. And I
think you're seeing a number of countries state, publicly state,
their position on the use of chemical weapons."

When asked whether it was in Assad's power to do anything to
prevent the threat of military action against his country, Hagel
replied that he did not wish to "speculate on hypothetical
situations."

The vote came just before US
President Barack Obama met with congressional lawmakers and other
key leaders to brief them on possible military action in Syria.
White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Thursday
that the US was prepared to “go it alone” in Syria to protect
American “core national security interests.”

“The president of the
United States is elected with the duty to protect the national
security interests of America,” he said. “The decisions he
makes about our foreign policy is with our national security
interests front and center.”

Doug Brandow, a senior fellow
at the Cato Institute, told The Guardian that “caution has grown”
within the Obama administration.

“I think they’ve found over
the last couple of days both a lack of support at home, both
among the American people and Congress, and then they look
internationally and suddenly they don’t feel quite so surrounded
by friends,” he said.